סימן ר״הSiman 205
Yoreh De'ah · דִּין הָאוֹסֵר דָּבָר עָלָיו בְּאִסּוּר תּוֹרָה
דִּין הָאוֹסֵר דָּבָר עָלָיו בְּאִסּוּר תּוֹרָה
Siman 205 — The attachment that does not take hold (דין האוסר דבר עליו באיסור תורה)
Only two seifim, and twenty-two commentary entries. (1) Attaching to a דבר האסור — a thing the Torah forbids of itself: the flesh of a pig, an idolatrous cult, נבלות וטריפות, and, said to his wife, כאמי, כאחותי, כערלה, ככלאי הכרם — creates no נדר. The reason, given by the Taz: all these are forbidden of themselves, and one cannot make a permitted thing become so too; the Rambam draws from it the general rule the Shach copies at ס״ק א. (2) And yet, if the speaker is an עם הארץ, a שאלה is required, with a פתח and not a mere חרטה — כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים; the Rama adds that nowadays all are so judged, and the Bach and the Shach divide on the extent of that requirement. (3) Seif ב: “let my wine be יין נסך and my bread פת כותים” does not bind either; but said בדרך קנס and followed by a transgression, יש אוסרים ויש מתירים. Matter for study; any real vow is brought before a Rav (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 205 — ב׳ סעיפים).
דין האוסר דבר עליו באיסור תורה. ובו ב׳ סעיפים:
האומר פירות אלו עלי או מין פלוני עלי או מה שאוכל עם פלוני עלי כבשר חזיר או כעבודת כוכבים או כנבלות וטריפות וכיוצא באלו וכן האומר לאשתו הרי את עלי כאמי או כאחותי או כערלה או ככלאי הכרם הרי אלו מותרים ואין כאן נדר ואם היה האומר עם הארץ צריך שאלה לחכם ומראין בעיניו שאשתו אסורה ושאותם פירות אסורים ומחמירים עליו שאין די לו בחרטה אלא צריך לפתוח לו פתח ממקום אחר ומתירים לו נדרו כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים: הגה יש אומרים דבזמן הזה לכולי עלמא דיינינן להו כדין עם הארץ לפי שרובן אינן בני תורה (תשובת הרשב״א) ומיהו י״א דאפילו בעם הארץ אין צריך שאלה רק באוסר אשתו עליו אבל לא בשאר נדרים (טור ועיין ס״ק ד׳):
One who says: “these fruits are upon me”, or “such a kind upon me”, or “what I shall eat with so-and-so upon me” — like the flesh of a pig, or like an idolatrous cult, or like נבלות וטריפות; and likewise one who says to his wife: “you are upon me like my mother, like my sister, like ערלה, like כלאי הכרם” — all these are permitted, and there is no נדר here. And if the speaker was an עם הארץ, he requires a שאלה before a חכם, and we are stringent with him: חרטה alone does not suffice, a פתח from another place must be opened for him — so that vows not be treated lightly. Gloss of the Rama: some say that nowadays all are judged as עמי הארץ; and yet some say that even for an עם הארץ, the שאלה is required only where he forbids his wife.
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 205:1 (ב׳ סעיפים)
The 4 levels of study
LEVEL 01
רמת המתחיל
Base — Beginner & Intermediate
The two seifim read one by one, with the Hebrew text, its English translation and an explanation of the mechanism: the boundary between דבר הנדור and דבר האסור (נדרים י״ג, the mishna in נדרים and the Rambam's rule), the requirement of a שאלה for an עם הארץ, the procedure by פתח and not by חרטה, and the utterance said בדרך קנס. The twenty-two commentary entries — the 10 ס״ק of the Shach, the 5 of the Taz, the 5 of the Baer Hetev, the Pitchei Teshuva and the Nekudot HaKesef — are quoted one by one.
📖 Study
LEVEL 02
רמת הלמדן
Lamdan — Talmid Hakham
Pilpul: what is the true criterion of the anchor — the origin of the prohibition or its reproducibility by a vow — tested on the Rambam's six graded cases (קרבן, חזיר, חטאת ואשם, חלת אהרן, נותר ופיגול, מעשר בהמה against בכור); the ma'hloket of the Rambam and the Rosh on the שאלה; the three reasons for the stringency concerning the wife and their נפקא מינות; the nature of the פתח where there is nothing to release; the qualification of the utterance said בדרך קנס; and the Bach's difficulty, the Taz's, and the single word of the Nekudot HaKesef.
📖 Study
LEVEL 03
חזרה וסיכום
Synthesis — Revision
A recap for revision: the siman in one sentence, the two seifim in a table, the vocabulary (דבר האסור, דבר הנדור, עם הארץ, שאלה, חרטה, פתח, יין נסך, פת כותים, דרך קנס, קלות ראש בנדרים), the three golden rules, the six classic pitfalls, the four points left under discussion and the checklist.
📖 Study
LEVEL 04
הלכה למעשה
Halakha lema'asse — the ruling
Halakha lema'asse: the ruling of the siman line by line according to the Mehaber, the Rama, the Shach, the Taz, the Baer Hetev, the Pitchei Teshuva, the Nekudot HaKesef and the Rambam — the rule of the anchor, the absence of a נדר, the שאלה of the עם הארץ and its disputed extent, the procedure by פתח, the exception of אונס, and the word of penalty. A ten-line ruling table; three points left open; every conclusion refers to the Rav.
📖 Study
Frequently asked questions — Siman 205
Why does saying “this dish is to me like the flesh of a pig” create no prohibition?
Because pork is forbidden of itself, by the Torah, and not by a man's word. The Taz (ס״ק א) puts it thus: all these are forbidden מצד עצמן, and one therefore cannot say of a permitted thing that it shall be “like this”, since it is impossible that it in turn become forbidden of itself. The Rambam draws from it the general rule — which the Shach copies out in full at ס״ק א: that to which one attaches must be a status a vow could produce. These are rules for study; any vow actually pronounced is brought before a Rav.
If nothing binds, why does the Shulchan Arukh nonetheless require a שאלה?
Because the ground is not the vow — there is none — but the example: כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים, so that vows not be treated lightly. The seif expressly aims at the עם הארץ, one who does not know that his word bound nothing; he is shown that his wife is forbidden and that those fruits are, and a שאלה is required. The Rama adds that nowadays all are judged as עמי הארץ, most not being בני תורה. The Bach and the Shach (ס״ק ד) then divide on the extent: all vows, or only the case of the wife.
What is a פתח, and why does a mere חרטה not suffice here?
חרטה is regret: declaring that one would never have formed this vow had one known. The פתח is something else: a consequence of the vow unknown to the speaker, which the חכם discloses to him. Our seif expressly requires the latter — חרטה does not suffice — and the Shach (ס״ק ג) specifies that this holds even if he repents from the origin. The Ran, whom he cites, adds a limit: that פתח is not opened for him by his mother's honour. Finding a פתח is an act of a חכם: it is not done alone, and that is why this whole chapter leads to a Rav.
And if one says: “if I do such a thing, my wine shall be יין נסך”?
This is the second half of seif ב, and the Shulchan Arukh does not decide: יש אוסרים ויש מתירים. The divergence bears on the nature of the utterance. For the lenient (the Rosh), it is an attachment, and it fails since יין נסך is not a דבר הנדור — the Shach (ס״ק ט) and the Taz (ס״ק ג) say so in a few words. For the stringent (the Rivash, reported by the Shach at ס״ק ח), it is not an attachment at all but a stringency a man imposes on himself, as a court may impose one. The Rama adds that, for an עם הארץ, one releases; and he distinguishes the case of a community decreeing in the time of the Sanhedrin, which belongs to a wholly different power.